Talk:Type 89 machine gun

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Japanese / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Separate pages for the two different Type 89

Now that someone has finally gone and created a page for the Japanese NAVY fixed Type 97 aircraft machine gun (Vickers), and people are no longer directed to the page about the Japanese Army Type 97 light machine gun when they are reading about the armament of the (Navy) Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it would be nice to also finally have separate pages for the two different types of Army Type 89 as well. Granted, it does explain both on the one page, but since they saw fit to give the Navy Type 97 (Vickers) it's own page, I don't see why the Army Type 89 (Vickers) shouldn't have its own page as well. Or the two (Type 97 and Type 89) could be combined, as they are both fixed guns and variants of the Vickers? That might actually be ideal, because one could explicitly point out the fact that the Japanese Services did not share weapons, and even when people do things like claiming that the Nakajima Ki-43 used "two Type 97 fixed machine guns", it would link the the correct page anyway; they'd read about the correct gun no matter what the link said. And yes, I just barely saw and fixed that exact mistake on the Ki-43 page. In that case, it would have been wrong even if the Japanese Army used Type 97 fixed guns, since it was still linked to the box-fed infantry Type 97 light-machine gun, which was never used on any Japanese plane, Navy or Army, as either a fixed or flexible weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]